Even the smallest meanest work became
A sweet or glad and glorious sacrament.

Pages

May 22, 2017

Richard Hartz, Rand Hicks, Debashish Banerji, and Michel Danino

To: Dr. Robert Boyer and other interested readers,

Dear Robert,

Please feel free to call me kashyap. Recently my name was added to this google group. I am a retired physics professor and like you have been interested in physics, Vedanta and consciousness. For consciousness I am in the initial learning stage. I do not have any ‘pet theory’ on consciousness! I have been glancing at your interesting papers. I may have some questions after I read your papers carefully. But here is one question which comes to my mind immediately.

Do you believe from your Vedic model that Bohm’s model about explicate and implicate order is essentially correct?

I should say that purely from physics point of view, Bohm’s interpretation is not doing well. It is true that in spite of 90 years debate about interpretation of quantum physics, there is no consensus on the issue of interpretation. But there have been polls amongst physicists about various interpretations. Usually Copenhagen interpretation gets top votes (not majority though) and Bohm’s theory gets practically zero votes. Admittedly, science should not be done by popularity contests! But the fact remains that Bohm’s theory has serious problems with theory of relativity and its insistence on particle trajectories being real. So overwhelming number of physicists do not agree with the model. This would include recent attempts to restore Bohm’s model.

As I see it, majority of physicists believe in non-real interpretation of quantum physics. This was clear from 1920s when wave-particle duality was accepted. But more recently, experiments based on Bell’s theorem have made it clear that particles do not have any (real) properties before they are measured. In this context, Einstein, the greatest scientist ever born, was most likely wrong! This is mentioned in my recent article “Concepts of Reality in Hinduism and Buddhism from the perspective of a physicist”. I have posted it on this blog, sometime back. I will appreciate your comments on it when you have time to read it. It seems to me that Vedanta (following Adi Shanakaracharya’s concept of Maya or Illusion) would agree more with non-real interpretation of quantum physics than with Bohm’s interpretation! Real interpretation may be ok for the ultimate Brahman but physics is not there yet!

Thanks.

Kashyap Vasavada

Vasavada, Kashyap V

May 22, 2017

...

I hope you read the paper I mentioned on free will, which discusses the thoughtful issue you brought up. The first part of the paper discusses an ontological model for real mind over matter necessary for free will, from a philosophy of physics angle. The second part addresses the meaning/definition of free will and applies the model to an epistemological approach for direct validation of free will in higher stages of development.

There is a boundary, 'a logical limit'. In computer science this limit is described by Rice's Theorem - any non-trivial property of a computer program is non-computable. In mathematics non-computability depends upon the exact problem: Hilbert's 10th problem, regarding Diophantine equations, is above the logic limit and non-computability also applies to other fields. Roger Penrose has shown it can be applied to recreational mathematical puzzles and in this paper I will apply the principle to general creativity and particularly the composition of music. The existence of creativity within our Universe leads to important consequences for the structure of that Universe. To be creative we must process information within our brains using non-deterministic 'software'. If humans run nondeterministic 'software' within their brains, the 'hardware' of the Universe must also be non-deterministic right down to the fundamental laws.

I. INTRODUCTION

Is human creativity computation? In 1995 Andrew Wiles proved Pierre de Fermat's famous Last theorem regarding Pythagorean triples1, a puzzle Fermat claimed to have solved 358 years earlier with a proof, he claimed, would not fit in the margin of his copy of Arithmetica.i Fermat's last theorem is a Diophantine equation ii , a somewhat esoteric field, yet every school child knows at least one Diophantine equation by heart, “The square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides”...

II. THE LOGIC LIMIT

In 1926 Hilbert summarized his thoughts on mathematics into three questions: Was mathematics complete, consistent and decidable? Kurt Gödel tackled completeness and consistency with his 1931 papers and then in 1936 Alan Turing and Alonzo Church answered the question of decidability. Church, using lambda calculus, and Turing, using the idea of an idealized computing machine,iii showed the decision problem ‘The Entscheidungsproblem’ has no solution. From this point onwards we knew all of mathematics is not susceptible to a general algorithm. Unfortunately, this did not tell us whether any specific class of problems was algorithmically unsolvable. Turing shows that if you take a single arbitrary problem from the infinite set of problems there is no single algorithm, which will solve that problem. But we know some arbitrary problems from subsets of all problems do have general solutions: The word processor on which I am typing clearly functions correctly for any text I throw at it. How do we tell which sets of problems are decidable and which are not? Logically we must deduce that since all problems from the infinite set cannot be decided yet problems from some subsets can be decided there must be a boundary separating...

There seems to be a logic limit that separates some classes ‘some’ from ‘all’. We can call this boundary the ‘logic limit’: the point at which algorithms can no longer solve problems and where something more must take over – where is this limit?"

JS, There appear to be not one, but two logic limits.

JACK SARFATTI

May 22, 2017

...

[Sadhu Sanga] Science is not Sacrosanct and Science Takes Place Within an Orthodox Tradition

The evidence collected by only direct sense perception and inference is always liable to be affected by the presumed notions that scientists cultivate under the influence of an orthodox scientific tradition. Hence, we cannot deny that there is also a possibility that in modern science we are eternally getting engaged in a mere misunderstanding of different things due to our unwillingness to explore the unscientific nature of conditioning that the orthodox scientific tradition is imposing on its practitioners... Science is not under siege but ‘honest science practice’ is under siege and James A. Shapiro explains the same in Boston Review: [...]

The relationship between man and nature is completely dependent on the type of attitude one cultivates with the help of education. Even though scientists are tiny minority of the populace, the widespread teaching of their misconceptions affect how people think about themselves as spiritual beings, and thus it influences the way they think about such concerns as abortion, euthanasia, bioethics in research and medicine, cloning, genetic modification of food, animal rights, environmental problems and so on. You have stated “Nudging people toward good behaviour should be the aim of religions. We leave it to them. Science deals with mother Nature.” and we also agree that science itself does not have any scientific methodology for cultivating good behaviour even among scientists. The notion of good in materialistic (exploitative) world view is completely opposite to that of religious (dedication to absolute) world view. Therefore, a scientific critique of modern science’s own presumed materialistic world view is also very much essential...

The subjective qualities like humility, tolerance and giving honour to others (without aspiring any honour for oneself) are divine qualities and they cannot come to us by a mere imitation. There is a proper process that one must undergo to develop these qualities. It is true that we may come across the practitioners of science and religion, who are not that tolerant, but that is not the problem of real science or religion. We may find dishonesty is prevalent among the so called followers of science/religion and that does not mean that science/religion is meant for dishonesty. As a honest follower of genuine science/religion one should try to understand the real goal of science/religion and thus he/she should try sincerely to attain that goal...

Darwin’s ‘natural selection’ is a disingenuous attempt to replace teleology with a mechanistic principle, because, unlike a breeder, there is no apparent ‘self’ in the ‘environmental conditions’ that will perform this subjective task of ‘selection’. As you have confirmed that "we [human beings] were able to evolve fantastic crops and animals to help and feed humanity" and thus unintentionally you have emphasized that nature cannot do that type of selection... By overcoming the influence of Darwinian evolution, can you explain what are the basics of evolution?

Sincerely,

Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute

+91-(9748906907)

May 21, 2017

...

In answer to your last question, Dr. Shanta:

The basics of evolution are that there has been a tremendous number of profound changes in the bodies of animals (also other living things, but let's focus on animals), especially over the last 500 million years, including the successful invasion of land by descendants of animals who had no capability of even walking on land.

It is unquestioned by competent biologists that evolution as described is a phenomenon that involves changes between parents and offspring accumulating over the eons, and that this genealogy is like the family trees we draw for us humans, except on a vaster scale and involving "single parenting" of one species giving rise to one or more others.

We can argue about the causes of these changes, and the extent to which spiritual influences were involved, but I think it is best to view evolution in this way to minimize confusion about what it is we are talking about.

New Delhi, Apr 25 (PTI) While popular culture is considered to be a subversive device to break canons, eminent photographer and arts critic Sadanand Menon ...

[Sri Aurobindo reincarnated the whole pantheon of Mount Olympus, Greek gods and goddesses in this book called Ilion] https://t.co/X88zPjBKJu

...

International Conference on Sri Aurobindo at Hindu University of America via Hinduism Today Magazine https://t.co/t5K4sn83Ze

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

RELEVANCE OF SRI AUROBINDO AND THE GRAND VISIONS OF THE ANCIENT INDIAN WISDOM

May 4 and 5, 2017

Despite the profundity of his philosophy and its wider implications, Sri Aurobindo and his ideas are relatively less known in the West, and there have been few events to make an in-depth study of his philosophy. The conference was a step towards filling this gap.

Sri Aurobindo argued that human society has evolved throughout history and is destined to move towards better organization of life...

The inter-disciplinary conference brought together scholars from diverse fields and featured academic presentations, chanting of hymns and smile meditation. Shri Braham Aggarwal, Chairman, Hindu University of America, inaugurated the conference and read the message of Dr. Karan Singh, the noted Sri Aurobindo Scholar and Indian Parliamentarian. The prominent guests in the conference included Shri Suresh Gupta, CEO, Park Square Homes, Shri M. P. Rama of JHM Hotels and Shri Manohar Shinde of Dharma Civilization Foundation.

The inaugural address was delivered by Dr. Anand Reddy of Sri Aurobindo Center for Advanced Research, and the Keynote addresses were delivered by Richard Hartz, Rand Hicks, Debashish Banerji and Michel Danino.

In his message, Dr. Karan Singh wrote, “Sri Aurobindo felt that India had a spiritual message which was urgently needed in the world of the twentieth century, in fact that he was destined to lead mankind up the next step of spiritual evolution, and one of the reasons why he was so adamant that the political goal should be nothing less than complete independence. It was his conviction that then alone could India fulfil her true destiny in the broader international community.”

There were twenty-six speakers in the conference representing academic institutions, think tanks, non-governmental organizations and business houses...

Participants unanimously agreed that relevance of Sri Aurobindo for the contemporary world is undisputable. There is a need for an in-depth study of philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and its potential to address problems at the levels of individual, society and the world. Though the conference explored theoretical aspects of Sri Aurobindo’s philosophy, it emphasized its practical application in day-to-day life. The two-day conference ended with the resolve to continue the learning experience.

No leader or thinker other than Sri Aurobindo has delved deep into the Veda to redefine the Indian wisdom for integrating it with Evolution. Hindutva has no use for Sri Aurobindo's The Secret of the Veda and it's anathema for Marxists. Hence the rationale for Savitri Era Religion. Heehs’ lecture on “Sri Aurobindo and Hinduism” is a devastating document contributes to new religion being created https://t.co/1SRUJRMJ0t

Far reaching repercussions of Sri Aurobindo's profound Vedic rediscovery has somehow been omitted by Heehs in the speech, incurring a glitch. The Mother & Sri Aurobindo refrained from peddling any kind of utilitarian or ritualistic practice as part of Integral Yoga to ensure purity. Savitri Era Religion based on Sri Aurobindo's Vedic rediscovery gives an alternative to all those who feel alienated by Hindutva aggression. Self-interest and security concerns have prevented Sri Aurobindo Ashram from disseminating this new religion option in an effective fashion. Integral Yoga is not a secular exercise and amounts to a new religion by another name.